intramuralist ™ – Page 123 – A Respectful Dialogue of Current Events

06/15/2014

coming soon

Every era has their issues, matters that brew and boil to a point of either acceptance or denial, as passionate advocates lobby for favorable, societal reception. A student of history would share with us issue timelines that marked entire eras, as the supporters’ perseverance was equally as important as any promotion. However, an issue often is accepted because it has proved wise or worthy over time; people have had time to weigh the impact on society and self.

A fascinating aspect of the 21st century, no less, is that we no longer utilize that time; the process is sped up. In the age of the internet, technology, and information flow, the time that once forded the wise measure of acceptance or denial has evaporated. Hence, we are lured into demanding that a perspective is right, shutting down debate, or not allowing another to feel a certain way — all because we no longer accept that time (next to suffering) is perhaps life’s greatest teacher.

We witness this now, I believe, in certainly some valid issues challenging society: climate change, gay marriage, and income inequality, for example. Instead of hammering out the wisdom and foolishness behind a perspective, persons on all sides are spending seemingly greater effort simply attempting to shut down an opposing perspective. Wisdom of the actual issue set aside, often our approach is foolish.

There is an additional issue the Intramuralist sees coming our way soon — an issue that has long been stirring in passionate circles that advocates desire to push to the forefront, utilizing that swift, advantageous information flow. As I consistently read through multiple media sources, I sense an increase in intentional promotion.

Now let me first offer a semi-stern caveat on this observation. Friends, none of us can consider ourselves objective in analysis of these issues if we adhere solely to a single news source. If you are a viewer of only MSNBC or only FOX News, your perspective is most likely not objective. If you only read the Drudge Report or Huffington Post, your opinion is most likely biased; you do not have great objectivity in your perspective. As has long been the Intramuralst’s practice (and encouragement), we consistently watch and read varied news from varied slants, with our most respected source of news being Real Clear Politics, a website that provides daily balanced perspective. A balanced perspective is wise.

That said, there is a new issue I’ve seen increasingly stirring through those sources. Be ready; with no offering of editorial wisdom or foolishness, here’s what the Intramuralist sees coming soon…

Reparations. Reparations is the idea that some compensatory payment from the federal government should be given to the descendants of slaves. Note that In 1999, the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for “the West” to pay $777 trillion to Africa within five years. In 2007, Guyana called for European nations to pay. Antigua & Barbuda have called for reparations. Jamaica and Barbados are both actively studying the issue. And with each new inaugural session of Congress, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduces legislation to study reparation proposals for African-Americans.

In a well-written piece in The Atlantic last month, senior editor Ta-Nehisi Coates laid out the case for reparations, saying “America will never be whole” until we make amends for our “moral debts.” His call has gained at least some sense of vernacular steam, with one Huffington Post contributor calling the essay both “brilliant and haunting” — and another, while moved by its message, questioning the wisdom in converting our “tradition of justice into a system of racial apportionment.” The issue is making its way into increased conversation.

As a presidential candidate, then Sen. Obama said, “I have said in the past — and I’ll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.” There have been multiple reports, however, that his inner circle, very loyal senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is supportive of reparations. Will Obama evolve on the issue? Will Executive Orders be considered? And the better question: if proposed, will we have the necessary time to weigh the impact on society and self?

Respectfully…

06/12/201406/12/2014

honesty: the best policy?

Over the course of the three most recent administrations, a significant question posed to each president is whether or not honesty is a prioritized policy — if honesty is just as adhered to as policies both foreign and domestic, economic and social. Is honesty the best policy? Or perhaps better said: is there a commitment to honest communication by the White House?

Questions of honesty plagued Pres. Clinton most after his moral mischief with Monica Lewinsky. Pres. Bush (43) was dogged with the dilemma after no weapons of mass destruction were found within Iraq. Pres. Obama finds himself as the current target of questions of intentional mistruth.

Let me not suggest that we are able to ascertain 100% truth. Save for Clinton’s rhetorically silly “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” — and let’s face it — such was in regard to personal behavior, not government policy — the Intramuralist does not believe from our limited vantage points that we can always discern the deception in our leaders. I believe we witness it far too often in the White House wordsmiths (woe to you, Jay Carney), but our perspective is limited. As a nation, we are also far too gullible, naive, or blinded to ignore obvious deception when the man/woman in charge adheres to similar political beliefs.

Friends, let me make a strong statement. I care more about the integrity of the leader than about similar political beliefs. If honesty is not an administration’s policy, then they will lose respect from this semi-humble current events observer. I believe that a leader is lacking some degree of integrity if they resort to lying and deception. I also understand that there exist times when the truth cannot be shared in totality, especially when national security may be at stake. However, simply because the truth cannot be transparently shared does not mean it’s ethical to be replaced by a lie. The end does not — and will not — ever justify the means.

As noted, Pres. Obama has found himself as the current target of ethical questions. Is he being honest with us? As we watch the events unfold and the statements revised regarding the release of five terrorists for one deserting soldier, questions are intensifying as to whether Obama lied to us about the move and the motive. Allow me a concise bottom line: we can’t tell. We cannot ascertain motive or mistruth.

I must acknowledge, however, that there was at least one day when I unfortunately knew this President’s mistruth was intentional and clear. It wasn’t regarding Bergdahl, Benghazi, nor even the IRS. It was about an issue that speaks deeper to my heart — baseball — an issue I semi-humbly believe I know better than our current President…

Yes, I know baseball. I kid you not. I love it! There was a time when I could name every starting player on every Major League team. What a joy it was to be a diehard fan of the Big Red Machine! Almost 40 years later, my big brother and I can still recite that lineup from heart… Rose, Griffey, Morgan, Perez, Bench, Foster, Concepcion, and Geronimo… I can still name most the entire bench and pitching staff. Similarly, Obama has claimed to be a devout Chicago White Sox fan, often publicly donning his black and white cap. He has used the team as a means of relating to ordinary Americans. Joining the Washington Nationals’ press box a few summers ago, Obama was casually asked about his favorite team: “Who was one of your favorite White Sox players growing up?”

Obama could not answer. He stammered much, saying, “Ya know… uh… I, I thought that uh, ya know, the truth is that a lot of the Cubs I liked, too, but uh, I did not become a Sox fan until I moved to Chicago. Because I uh, ya know, I was growing up, uh, in Hawaii.” Ordinary Americans who claim to be devout fans can name at least one beloved player. Obama could name no one.

“Honesty is not the best policy. It is the only policy”… at least it should be… for each of us.

Respectfully…

06/10/201406/10/2014

restraint

Every now and then there seems an aspect of a story omitted. Let’s face it; we never quite know the reason for the omission…

Was it intentional?

Was it oversight?

Did the sharer of information simply not prioritize that specific aspect?

Does the sharer have a different perspective than I?

Bottom line: we don’t know. We don’t fully know the reason for the omission.

Last week all news seemed shifted to the second page when the story arose about Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Briefly surmised, the situation was this: the administration made the decision without specific congressional awareness to exchange five high-ranking Taliban terrorists for one American who had abandoned his post. In question is whether the White House negotiated with terrorists, broke the law by not consenting with Congress, and if the price was too high. Also, U.S. intelligence judged the released Taliban members as almost certain to “return to the fight” against America. Hence, in a seemingly rare cross-country moment, the outrage was unified in bipartisanship.

While inconsistency and scrutiny continue to swell, there is one aspect of the story that was omitted — or at least downplayed — in initial reports. It is an aspect that makes this semi-humble blogger exercise extended self-restraint…

In announcing the sergeant’s release, Pres. Obama, who was accompanied by Bergdahl’s parents, made a praising, public statement in the Rose Garden. Such is still not my cause for my restraint. After Obama spoke, Bergdahl’s father, Bob, took a turn at the mic. He began with the following:

“I’d like to say to Bowe right now, who’s having trouble speaking English, bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim. I’m your father, Bowe.”

In other words: “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful”… Bob Bergdahl thanked Allah for his son’s release. Note that on the White House’s official transcript, as appearing on Whitehouse.gov, those words are omitted. Why? I searched the transcripts myself. Why is the praise of Allah omitted?

Since these are the opening words of every chapter of the Qur’an except for one, there is valid question as to whether the use of this phrase is significant in regard to claiming, sanctifying, or some special Islamic meaning.

Without a doubt, each of us has the right to our own faith and belief. Many have adopted Islam around the world, and by no means do a majority of Muslims (at least in this country) embrace Islam’s radical terrorist wing, a devout group intent on destroying any who call upon the name of Jesus.

Let me also acknowledge that I have no idea how I would respond should one of my sons, God forbid, ever be held in captivity. I can’t imagine being Bowe Bergdahl’s parent. I am increasingly uncomfortable, however, with a country which seems intentional in suppressing the name of Jesus Christ in any class, court, or public arena, yet still showcases a celebrated moment when the only divine gratitude expressed is actually the same gratitude expressed by the terrorists who held him. Obama notably smiled at the reference to Allah. Did the White House know Allah would be the only divine gratitude expressed? Were they comfortable with that? Why that phrase? Did they know the Arabic phrase featured prominently in the Qur’an would be invoked? What was the White House thinking?

My sense is this story was originally intended to be a feel-good story about a rescued soldier, in a moment each of us would celebrate. There was a desire to bring positive publicity to a White House that seems drowning in increased allegations of scandal and inefficiency; there was a desire to highlight a positive story regarding a veteran after so many negative stories regarding veterans’ care. So the White House kicked off this story with an intended euphoric photo op. Unfortunately, the story is now far more than that, especially noting how Taliban sources were reportedly “thrilled.”

No wonder this story won’t go away… no wonder the father’s words have been omitted… and no wonder some of us need to practice increased self-restraint.

Respectfully…

06/07/201406/07/2014

president? king?

I was thinking about the most important quality necessary to be President. Let’s face it; it’s a huge job. Some do it well; some don’t. Some seem to thrive; others, well, never quite seem to get the hang of it. Hear me out… I’m not saying the Intramuralist has what it takes. I don’t, but I was thinking about the most important quality in those who seek the seat.

I decided that most necessary — putting all partisan agreement/disagreement aside (hard as that is for some) — is executive experience. If a person is going to lead this country efficiently and well, they need executive experience. That means a person who’s previously had the power to put plans and actions into effect — as opposed to just talk about them… a person who has managed people, timetables, and tasks… a person who has had to work within the framework of a budget — within both the limits and surplusses… a person who knows they are accountable — and that accountability is obvious; it drives them… a person who embraces being judged more by results than by rhetoric… a person who never allows an ideology to trump the bottom line. An executive never loses sight of the big picture.

I speak not of whether or not we agree or disagree politically. I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again: I’ve yet to find anyone running for office with whom I agree on all points. Regardless of political bent on an issue, as we continue to witness the current White House navigate via awkward, controversial, and sometimes arguably scandalous decision-making, my sense is the person who is the President would serve the country better if they come to the table with ample executive experience.

That could be a former CEO or governor… the leader of a company or charity. That could be a Governor Christie, Richardson, or Martinez. That could be a Bill Gates or Meg Whitman. Let me tell you, though, what it’s not. Executive experience is not a lawyer or legislator. With all due respect to current and past occupiers, lawyers and legislators utilize a different set of skills. They don’t typically execute plans and actions; they spend far more time simply talking about them.

With respect to Dem’s and Rep’s alike… to Hillary, Joe, Rand, and Rubio… I realize many of you 2016 hopefuls have your eyes on the so-called prize; you each, also, would bring something unique to the Oval Office. None of you, however, has the executive experience the Intramuralist believes is necessary to be courageously consistent making decisions in the West Wing.

As we witness continued controversy in multiple administrations — some criticism deserved, some not, and some impossible to discern whether or not actually deserving — my desire for executive experience only magnifies. I want someone who’s dealt with similar circumstances before.

In thinking of executive experience, there may be one trait that trumps even that…

“And David shepherded them with integrity of heart.”

I was reading the annals of ancient leaders and kings, and I was struck by the reign of David. The youngest of 8 had not the known resume nor repertoire of his older, more accomplished brothers. He was a simple shepherd. But he shepherded them — he led them — with “integrity of heart.”

What is that? It seems better and more than any political persuasion… better than rhetoric or results… better still than executive experience. Here was David, by all accounts and purposes, an inexperienced boy. And yet, the historic scriptures speak of him as a leader like no other. Even with ample mistakes in office, so-to-speak, the effectiveness of his leadership was unprecedented.

Ok, so I was thinking about the most important quality necessary to be President. I now have two…

Respectfully…

06/05/201406/05/2014

team vs. individual

A fascinating event begins this evening, and while the event actually takes place on basketball’s hardwood, I promise that this post is not about sports. As in the recent stories of Donald Sterling and Michael Sam, sports often serves as a societal microcosm. So many pay attention, and the lessons and learning often surpass the arena or the game.

Tonight begins “The Finals,” the annual championship series between the best of the NBA. The winner of the best of 7 series will receive the coveted Walter A. Brown Trophy and be crowned the year’s victor. It is the event that made Bird and Boston and Magic and Michael household names. Tonight, however, is unique for a far different reason.

The 2014 Finals features the Miami Heat vs. the San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs are considered the nation’s best team. As written in USA Today’s analysis: “The Spurs have been the best team in the NBA all season. They have unprecedented depth, with no one averaging 30 minutes a game in the regular season, and they play with a natural grace through ball movement that makes them one of the most beautiful-to-watch teams in the NBA.”

The Heat are considered as having the best player. Also as written by USA Today: “LeBron James is LeBron James, still the best player in the world…”

The Spurs vs. Heat. The best team vs. the best player. More than one vs. one. Team vs. individual. Therein lies the observation: which is the more successful, profitable approach? Which is more efficient? Which rallies people behind you? … accomplishments that are attributed most to a team — where many contribute relatively equal but different efforts in leadership, performance, and decision-making? … or when the leadership, performance, and decision-making is attributed to a single individual?

It’s hard to ignore the parallels with American leadership. Many also prefer to “go it alone” as opposed to work together. Now granted, it’s no secret that our often visibly dysfunctional government refuses to work together — preferring to find both convenience and comfort in either arrogance or opposition. Yet this country was established with a system of checks and balances that created three equal levels of government — not one level that’s superior or a single level that’s wisest and best. The checks and balances are intentional.

Hence, on a day when the lead story continues to center around the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for 5 high-ranking Taliban detainees — when many suggest Bergdahl was a deserter and the price was thus too high to pay — when the White House bypassed Congress — when both Republicans and Democrats complain about not being informed, which may or may not be illegal — when the White House apologizes for an oversight — when it’s hard to discern what’s right, wrong, or somewhere in between — on this day, the Intramuralist makes two primary observations:

First, we don’t have all the information. We don’t need all the information. And thus, we are incapable of discerning from the convenience of our living room couch whether the release of a single soldier for five terrorists was foolish or wise.

And second, some people still prefer to “go it alone.”

Please don’t read into the Intramuralist’s observations that I believe it’s foolish to go it alone. I didn’t say that. Note that by “going it alone” so-to-speak, LeBron James has won the last two titles; he’s been victorious and successful. Granted, by utilizing the entire team, the Spurs had the best record all season long. The Spurs have been successful by tapping into the talents, utilizing the efforts, and including the insight and expetise of far more than a few.

So who wins? Who will be most successful — the team or the individual? At least on the hardwood, we’ll find out soon.

Respectfully…

06/02/201406/03/2014

nothing

There are days I’m just not sure what to write about…

I don’t want to criticize; I don’t want to complain; but so much of contemporary culture frustrates me… so much makes me want to scream for better and more…

… the lack of ethics… the lack of respect… the lack of balanced spending…

… the suppression of individual liberty… the intolerance of opinion… the repression of ideas…

… the attack on individual expression… the attack on Judeo-Christian faiths… the attack on free speech… justified name calling… and lack of diverse, reverent dialogue…

Geepers… the attacks… the squelching…the disrespect…

It was only last week when former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke at Harvard’s commencement. His words were fascinating; among them, he sternly said:

“Think about the irony: In the 1950’s, the right wing was attempting to repress left wing ideas. Today, on many college campuses, it is liberals trying to repress conservative ideas, even as conservative faculty members are at risk of becoming an endangered species. And perhaps nowhere is that more true than here in the Ivy League…

Great universities must not become predictably partisan. And a liberal arts education must not be an education in the art of liberalism.”

So much makes me want to scream for better and more. There should not be a squelching — of either conservatism or liberalism — of tradition or progression.

It’s not about Michael Bloomberg. It’s not about Pres. Obama. It’s not about any political adversary or predecessor nor anyone on the predominant, proverbial left or right. It’s about doing what’s good and true and right — all the time.

I’d prefer to act as if today’s blog parallels the iconic “Seinfeld” episode, “The Pitch.” “The Pitch” is the clever episode in which Jerry & Co. present NBC executives with an original sitcom idea, a series about nothing. That’s right: nothing. The ever neurotic, always amusing George Costanza argues with the execs about the validity of his proposed premise regarding “a show about nothing” — no plot, no stories — but the idea doesn’t sit well with those in charge. As George says, “Look, if you want to just keep on doing the same old thing, then maybe this idea is not for you. I, for one, am not going to compromise my artistic integrity. And I’ll tell you something else, this is the show and we’re not going to change it.” George and Jerry propose a show about nothing.

I suppose some days such would be easy. Let’s blog about nothing. Yep, nothing. But I can’t. I can’t.

I want more than entertainment value. I want more than filling the air time. When we began this dialogue some 6 years ago, I knew then we would never settle for nothing. There are days it’s necessary to scream for better and more.

… the attacks… the squelching…

… yes, there are days it’s necessary to scream for better and more.

Respectfully, of course…

06/01/201406/01/2014

inconsistency

Sometimes as much as we wish for things to fit together and be free from inconsistency, the actions and consequences are still not. It’s not about one man or person or policy. It’s rampant in us… in how we feel and what we support…

Veterans Affairs Sec. Eric Shinseki: oversaw widespread ineffective care and fraud within the Veterans Health Administration… Shinseki: OUT.

Health & Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius: oversaw millions of taxpayer dollars wasted on botched Obamacare rollout… (Although later resigning on own timetable) Sebelius: IN.

NBA owner Donald Sterling: racial slurs in privacy of own home caught on tape… OUT.

NBA player Ron Artest: perpetrator of the infamous “Malice at the Palace,” brawling with fans in the stands… Artest (who has conveniently changed his name): IN.

While many of us can make a case for each of the above, the challenge we often find lies within the inconsistency of the application. Our actions and advocacies don’t always fit well together.

I think of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., who for decades has called for the ouster of many because of actions and statements he believes have been either discriminatory or disrespectful. And yet in the sometimes inconvenient image producer of social media, it was the good reverend who last week, retweeted the following, in regard to Pope Francis:

“Francis, you old half dead hum bug u were living with another man in a one bed room apartment, I suppose u luv booty.”

Granted, it was a “retweet” as opposed to the original articulation — but undoubtedly disrespectful and derogatory just the same. Jackson’s later response, perhaps aware of the need for damage control? “This tweet does not reflect my views. I would hope all who received it or saw it would not bring further attention to it.”

So we’re to believe that Jackson’s tweet doesn’t wholly represent his views, but Donald Sterling’s audiotape does. We’re to believe that Sebelius’s poor management doesn’t reflect the totality of her leadership, but Shinseki’s does. Sorry, but I’m confused. It doesn’t all fit together.

Perhaps long most confusing to this semi-humble current events observer is the role of Jay Carney. Jay Carney has served as the White House Press Secretary after a previous role as a Time Magazine correspondent. The role of the press secretary is to “act as spokesperson for the United States government administration, especially with regard to the President, senior executives, and policies,” sharing information about the administration, issues, and the administration’s reactions to world developments. The challenge is that the secretary also has to craft an image with his words that makes the administration sound and look good — that makes the White House seem totally transparent, ever ethical, and beyond reproach. Note: For no contemporary administration has that been possible. The role and goal of the White House Press Secretary doesn’t always fit together.

On Friday, after 3 years in the position, Carney resigned.

Maybe he realized the inconsistency, too.

Respectfully…

05/29/201405/29/2014

correctness

I learned something the other day. Follow me here. My 17 year old is witty and bright and solid and beautiful… oh, the places he’ll go! I’m so hopeful for him… so proud. I’ve also learned so much. As a wise friend shared years ago, it isn’t only about what we will teach the younger generation; it’s also about what they will teach us.

One of the things I’ve learned — and truthfully, not always easily or anywhere near gracefully — is that I don’t have to dictate the conversation. Even though I’m older, wiser, and more experienced in most academic areas, I don’t have to dictate the when, where, and what of our conversation. The timing and content isn’t always up to me; it doesn’t have to be. In fact, often the message is most effective when I cede any thought of having to dictate, dominate, or control.

As my son entered his junior year of high school, for example, I was consistently adamant that he begin narrowing his future college major. It was not that he needed to specifically figure all of life out, but I was uncomfortable that baseball was his primary focus and passion. I did not want to permit such abundant articulation of that passion.

I’m thinking society is also uncomfortable with certain articulated passions.

The increasingly accepted societal approach, if someone isn’t where we think they need to be, is sadly to shame, silence, and attempt to shut down. Pick your topic; pick your passion; political correctness is too easily embraced and accepted. Instead of allowing someone to possess an opinion at a given point in time, in the name of political correctness, society is dictating both timing and content; it’s as if we are not allowed to even feel differently — much less express varied opinion.

From Pres. Obama’s oft repeated words — on global warming, nationalized health care, and early childhood education: “The debate is over.”

Or ironically last week, from liberal talk show host, Bill Maher, a man the Intramuralist rarely mentions because of his consistent disrespect…

“Now I bring all this up in 2014 because unfortunately, political correctness is making a comeback, and now with the Internet, it’s easier than ever… all the Internet exists to do is point at the latest person who said the wrong thing, so the rest of us can feel morally superior…

Now social media is all about gotcha. A homophobic businessman, or a sexist cartoonist, or a college president who fat-shamed his dog by naming it ‘Waddles’…

A few weeks ago, the CEO of Mozilla was forced to resign because it was revealed that in 2008, he supported Prop. 8, California’s ban on gay marriage… Obama was against gay marriage in 2008! Does he have to resign? Hillary came around just last year. Can she be President?

You can’t purge everybody who doesn’t evolve exactly on the timetable you did.”

Purging people and opinion is not respectful nor effective. Just as I learned with my older son, the challenge with dictating perceived correctness is its lack of effectiveness. While words may be silenced and actions disallowed, dictating timing, content, and opinion doesn’t change the heart of the beholder. It only exacerbates opposition, as it justifies disrespect.

My son is still passionate about baseball. He hopes to play at a higher level — and I am his number one fan! However, guess who now speaks equally if not more about his future academic pursuit? Guess who initiates the conversation? It wasn’t some magic formula, and the change did not immediately occur. It did take surrender on this semi-humble parent’s part; there were many months I was uncomfortable. But my discomfort remained silent. The results have been excellent.

Respectfully…

05/27/201405/27/2014

wise sayings

As my family and I spent significant time resting this past Memorial Day weekend, I found myself reflecting upon some ancient proverbs, wondering, no less, if we still hold them to be true.

Do we honor them? … believe in them? … disagree with them? … or ignore them — not wanting to acknowledge any potential truth? I wonder…

A faithful man will be richly blessed…

A kindhearted woman gains respect…

A generous man will prosper…

Evil men do not understand justice…

A greedy man stirs up dissension…

Every fool is quick to quarrel…

A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions…

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult…

A fool gives full vent to his anger…

The adulteress gives not thought to the way of life; her paths are crooked, but she knows it not…

Do not be wise in your own eyes…

Do not forsake wisdom…

Do not withhold good from those who need it…

The man of integrity walks securely, but he who takes crooked paths will be found out…

A man’s pride brings him low…

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom…

Humility comes before honor…

Wisdom is found in those who take advice…

All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty…

He who answers before listening — that is his folly and his shame…

Here are six things God hates, and one more that he loathes with a passion: eyes that are arrogant, a tongue that lies, hands that murder the innocent, a heart that hatches evil plots, feet that race down a wicked track, a mouth that lies under oath, a troublemaker in the family…

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding…

He who trusts in himself is a fool…

Let me say it again: do we honor these proverbs? … believe in them? … disagree with them? … or ignore them — not wanting to acknowledge any potential truth?

I wonder…

Respectfully…

05/24/201405/24/2014

a 2 letter word

I had another “a-ha” moment last week — one of those things you believe really should have been learned in kindergarden or at least somewhere along the way — one of those learnings that even the most educated among us seem to neglect…

I stumbled upon life’s arguably, most omitted word… an unusually small word, but a word so powerful it changes perception… a word when included, it actually alters the meaning of the message.

I’ll be honest (as if I’m sometimes not)… omission of the word is easier; to include even its mere two letters — a single vowel accompanied by a consonant — means having to acknowledge “life’s gray.” In other words, life’s a little easier when we dabble in black and white, resolutely asserting opinion — ardently proclaiming “this is true” and “this is not” — never having to wrestle with the possibility that a scenario may be different than we perceive it… never having to consider that we may not have all the information… and never having to contemplate that our perspective may be misguided or the depth of our passion unsubstantiated.

The word is simple: “IF.”

If.

“If” changes the meaning. Allow me to demonstrate, utilizing a masculine pronoun for rhetorically simple purposes this day…

If he is guilty…

If he is innocent…

If he is racist…

If he is a bigot…

If he is a homophobe…

If he is any kind of “phobe”…

If he is ignorant…

If he doesn’t understand…

If he doesn’t care…

If he doesn’t know…

Instead, in our incredibly convenient, “black and white” world, we far too frequently assert:

He is guilty.

He is innocent.

He is racist.

He is a bigot.

He is a homophobe.

He is some kind of “phobe.”

He is ignorant.

He doesn’t understand.

He doesn’t care.

And he doesn’t know.

It makes life easier when we can omit the “if”… perhaps omitting the “and’s” and “but’s,” too. But once again, life being easier does equate to the manifestation of wisdom. Living in a black and white world means never growing from the reality that we are sometimes “off” in our opinion and perspective. Even the most educated and intelligent are sometimes off; the passionate are off. We are off.

We would be wise to refrain from omission. If only the world was so wise…

Respectfully…